I think Objectivism can offer many positives, particular it's epistemology & theory of ethics. Ayn Rand was a profound yet controversial thinker, who's ideas can yield many benefits. When it comes to her continuing legacy, I prefer the approach taken by Nathaniel Branden & David Kelly, as opposed to that of Leonard Peikoff.
Here are some articles on the controversies surrounding interpretations of the philosophy:
"The Unlikeliest Cult In History"
www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml
"What's Really Wrong With Objectivism?"
www.jeffcomp.com/faq/wrong.html
"Is Objectivism A Cult?" www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult1.html

From what I've seen, Objectivism may be the shallowest "philosophy" there is (using the term loosely, for Rand cerrainly did not love wisdom).
Instead of inquiring into deep philosophic questions, it ignores them and assumes the answers without justification.
It's treatment of questions surrounding the nature of justice, human happiness, free will, human "rights", etc... is just childish.
Objectivism is contemptable; it is anti-philosophy.

For those who are hostile toward Objectivism, I'm curious as to which source material you have read by either Ayn Rand or her contemporaries?
Here's an additional article of possible interest. It's written by Rand's one time "intellectual heir", Nathaniel Brandon:
"The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"
www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html

I've read a couple of essays from a book entitled "Philosphy, who needs it?" or something like that. Also, some entries in something called the "Objectivist Encyclopedia" or "Objectivist Dictionary". A guy I know, who is a HUGE supporter of Rand, asked me to look them over. Needless to say, I was not impressed.
Although I found almost all of it quite distasteful, I remember most clearly being offended by her presentation of "free will". She doesn't seem to have grasped the simpliest problems surrounding it. She basically said, if I remember correctly, "it's somewhere between cause/effect and complete chaos...". That's like saying the universe is somewhere between finite and infinite.
I'm hostile towards it because, by avoiding actual philosohic questions, it makes impressionable youths believe that they are wiser than they are. This can lead to a corruption of potentially philosophic people.

The thing´s you´ve presented haven´t changed my opinion. I think objectivism is simply illogical, a calculational mistake.
For example "A=A" doesn´t say that what things are is "ndependent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions — that existence exists". It simply isn´t there. And "existence exists" is just unnecessary nonsense, as Bertrand Russell explained back in 1905 in the founding paper of analytic philosophy "On Denoting"(1).
It is wrong that "a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;" This simply is a clssical confusion between ought and is, the so called naturalistic fallacy. A fallacy pointed out by Hume back in 1740. Rand knew this, but her response to Hum didn´t make much sense.
Defining "Well-being" is a problem in itself so it doesn´t help to say "That the standard of the good is [...] "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;"
It is not clear what it means "That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;", since the amount of retaliation isn´t specified. It´s also easy to find example where one get´s perverse results following this view.
Without the possibilty to derive "natural rights" from empirical facts, Rands philosophy breaks down like a card tower.
(1) http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoting/

Dogbert, the links I provided weren't intended to change your opinion. If anything they show some of the problems those with an affinity for Objectivism have encountered in applying it.
As in every philosophy, there are holes & gaps in Objectivism. Yet I see Objectivism as an open system, with a solid base, & I think it has much that is good & practical to offer.
"For example "A=A" doesn´t say that what things are is "independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions — that existence exists". It simply isn´t there."
This is logic. A is A is the law of identity. What problem do you have with this?
"And "existence exists" is just unnecessary nonsense,"
It establishes that in her view of metaphysics, reality exists as a primary, as an objective absolute. While our senses interpret reality imperfectly & our thoughts are not infallible, the world we live in is a valid frame of reference and can be understood.
In building a philosophic system, there are of course alternative views on metaphysics. This was particularly true during the time & environment that she grew up in and reacted against.
"It is wrong that "a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;" This simply is a classical confusion between ought and is, the so called naturalistic fallacy."
I don't see her as "confused" about anything here. Her theory of ethics flows from her metaphysics & epistemology. It's entirely consistent with the axioms of her system.
"Defining "Well-being" is a problem in itself so it doesn´t help to say "That the standard of the good is [...] "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;"
Here's a quote from Atlas Shrugged:
"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these."
In Objectivism, a moral code is considered as a requirement to live, because life is not automatic. She defines "life" as the standard of moral value, as what a person aims to maintain and keep. Acting in ways that enables a person to "flourish" as a living & functioning person, would be considered good. In that way, I've always seen Objectivist ethics as Eudaimonistic.
Rand first established in her axioms that people are:
1. capable of experiencing an objective reality (Existence exists)
2. Can use reason to deal with reality (A is A)
From there, what comprises "well-being" is open to infinite interpretation.
"It is not clear what it means "That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;", since the amount of retaliation isn´t specified. It´s also easy to find example where one get´s perverse results following this view."
This flows from her theory of morality. As individuals, people have a right to live without interference. Since the concept is applied universally, those who "initiate force" are a problem & must be dealt with in some form.
The problem of individuals "initiating force" is what leads to Rand sanctioning the establishment of a government. The specifics of how the government would be financed, how criminals would be sentenced & other details have always been an area of weakness in the Objectivist system.
"Without the possibility to derive "natural rights" from empirical facts, Rands philosophy breaks down like a card tower."
It doesn't breakdown at all if you use the words & terms within the context she herself defines them. Ayn Rand made the mistake of misinterpreting conflicting theories, just as her critics misinterpret her today. I would doubt this is done purposely, but is reflection of how different people can honestly reach different conclusions by way of defining words & terms differently.

I really think that this is all quite shallow. I would again call attention to her treatment of free will, or perhaps the equally repugnant suggestion that...
"As individuals, people have a right to live without interference."
What is Rand's counter to "might makes right"? If I am bigger and stronger (or perhaps better in some less obvious way), why don't I have the right to interfere with whomever I choose?

Socrates, why do you find the idea that people have a right to live without others initiating force against them repugnant?
"What is Rand's counter to "might makes right"? If I am bigger and stronger (or perhaps better in some less obvious way), why don't I have the right to interfere with whomever I choose?"
People "rights" begin & end with their own lives, meaning that they never have "rights" over other people. Her response to those who feel "might makes right" is an established government that provides protection against the initiation of force.

"why do you find the idea that people have a right to live without others initiating force against them repugnant?"
I suspect that it betrays a base, weak morality. Although Rand supposedly condemns Christianity, I would bet that she is actually a sheep in wolf's clothing, or perhaps I should say a Christian in athiest's clothing...
"People "rights" begin & end with their own lives, meaning that they never have "rights" over other people."
I hope you realize that this is NOT an argument; it is merely an assertion (and I suspect an assumption on Rand's part).
I could just as easily assert that every man has the right to do anything that is good for him, and that includes harming other people.
Or I could assert the aristocratic position that some people are by nature better than other people, and the better people have a right to do whatever they feel like to their inferiors.
My original question was, what does Rand say to these counter assertions? What is her philosophic argument in support of her egalitarean (as opposed to aristocratic) veiw of human rights?

"I suspect that it betrays a base, weak morality. Although Rand supposedly condemns Christianity, I would bet that she is actually a sheep in wolf's clothing, or perhaps I should say a Christian in atheist's clothing..."
That's quite derogatory Socrates. Could you please site a specific statement that she has made that leads you to this assumption?
""People "rights" begin & end with their own lives, meaning that they never have "rights" over other people.""
"I hope you realize that this is NOT an argument; it is merely an assertion (and I suspect an assumption on Rand's part)."
It's best understood in context of her fuller system.
"I could just as easily assert that every man has the right to do anything that is good for him, and that includes harming other people. Or I could assert the aristocratic position that some people are by nature better than other people, and the better people have a right to do whatever they feel like to their inferiors."
Of course you could. Morality & moral theories are social constructions. Because morals do not exist in nature, subjective assertions is all we will ever have. Yet the standards Rand sets for her own however, are internally consistent.
"My original question was, what does Rand say to these counter assertions? What is her philosophic argument in support of her egalitarian (as opposed to aristocratic) view of human rights?"
LOL I already told you exactly what she would say. Yet perhaps a more detailed explanation would be more helpful. BTW, her views are neither "egalitarian" or "aristocratic". They are Objectivist. They can only be understood in context of the axioms which underlie her system. Any out of context separation will lead to a misrepresentation of what she is trying to say.
Here is a link that will hopefully provide a more helpful perspective for your question. Click on Individual Rights for her comments:
http://snow.prohosting.com/rights/indexphilo.htm

"That's quite derogatory Socrates. Could you please site a specific statement that she has made that leads you to this assumption?"
Indeed, my statement was meant to be derogatory. I am led to it, in part, by the fact that she thinks, as you say, that everyone has the "right to live without others initiating force against them".
"It's best understood in context of her fuller system."
I seriously doubt this; I hope you can show me the error of my ways...
"Morality & moral theories are social constructions. Because morals do not exist in nature, subjective assertions is all we will ever have. Yet the standards Rand sets for her own however, are internally consistent."
First off, I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said. Morality is a "social construction"? Who exactly is the architect, and how do they determine their designs?
But please, don't answer that. Let's assume you're right. Morality is a subjective choice. So, now it's time to pick my moraltiy. The question still remains, "what makes Rand's morality a better choice?" The aristocratic principle is also "internally consistent". The better man can consistently do what is good for him, consistently enslaving, raping and killing his inferiors. If consistency is the criteria of choice, isn't it just as good as Rand's?
"LOL I already told you exactly what she would say."
You're very crafty, and you must be trying to trick me. Look back and see. You simply told HOW she would defend against mighty people, but you did not give her philosophic justification for doing so, which is what I asked for.
"BTW, her views are neither "egalitarian" or "aristocratic". They are Objectivist."
They certainly are "egalitarean". According to her, everyone has EQUAL rights not to be interfered with, just because they are human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that egalitarean.
Lastly, isn't it IRONIC that a system which, as you say, is based on the SUBJECTIVE assertion of morality is called OBJECTIVIST?
Thank you for the link; I'll look at it soon, but I'm more interested in your responses.

I looked at the link, and again, you must be trying to trick me! There is not one argument there. It merely asserts that every man has the right to life, and thus that they do not have the right harm others, who are also have a right to life.
But again I say to you the opposite! Every man has an individual right to do what makes his life the best possible, and THEREFORE he has the right to enslave, rape and kill whomever he is able. Rand seems to have no defense against this, except to blindly assert that it's somehow wrong. Like I said, she merely assuems the answers to actual philsophic questions.

"Indeed, my statement was meant to be derogatory. I am led to it, in part, by the fact that she thinks, as you say, that everyone has the "right to live without others initiating force against them".
This is her view, one that I agree with. I still don't understand what you find derogative about it.
"I seriously doubt this; I hope you can show me the error of my ways..."
My advice would be to read her source material with an open mind. She is the best exemplar of her own views.
"First off, I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said. Morality is a "social construction"? Who exactly is the architect, and how do they determine their designs?"
First I'd like to point out my views on this are different from that of Objectivism. As I see it, the so called architects of moral theories are of course human beings. The design comes through establishing subjective standards. Actions being "good" or "bad" are evaluated against these standards, which are the product of social construction. What is morally "good" or "bad" can just as easily be judged differently by creating another set of standards. Neither system would be better without the implication of these imaginary standards.
"But please, don't answer that. Let's assume you're right. Morality is a subjective choice. So, now it's time to pick my morality. The question still remains, "what makes Rand's morality a better choice?"
To me personally, it's merely a matter of preference. For her answer, read the previous link.
"The aristocratic principle is also "internally consistent". The better man can consistently do what is good for him, consistently enslaving, raping and killing his inferiors. If consistency is the criteria of choice, isn't it just as good as Rand's?"
Views on what is "good" is the product of a subjective standard. For me personally, your aristocratic principle is not attractive, so it wouldn't be as good.
"They certainly are "egalitarian". According to her, everyone has EQUAL rights not to be interfered with, just because they are human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that egalitarian."
In that specific example, with regards to negative liberty, you are correct Socrates.
"Lastly, isn't it IRONIC that a system which, as you say, is based on the SUBJECTIVE assertion of morality is called OBJECTIVIST?"
I hope I didn't cause confusion. You said in previous thread that you could make certain moral propositions at will. I replied that moral theories are subjective. I was speaking for myself, not Ayn Rand. My apologies if my comments were misleading about what her views are.

"But again I say to you the opposite! Every man has an individual right to do what makes his life the best possible, and THEREFORE he has the right to enslave, rape and kill whomever he is able. Rand seems to have no defense against this, except to blindly assert that it's somehow wrong. Like I said, she merely assumes the answers to actual philosophic questions."
Socrates, using your example, if EVERY man has the right to make his life as best as possible, then wouldn't it be a contradiction for any one man to inhibit this right in others?
If the principle is universal that "every man" has a right to make his life as best as possible, , then wouldn't it would imply the necessity of an absence of the enslaving, raping & killing of other men?

"This is her view, one that I agree with. I still don't understand what you find derogative about it."
This is a side issue, and an adequate explanation would be quite long. In brief, I think that this view results from very weak and slavish tendencies in man. Nietzsche would call it "slave morality". It strikes me as ugly.
"First I'd like to point out my views on this are different from that of Objectivism."
Although I disagree with your view, perhaps we should let this go for now and focus on Objectivism, for this is the topic of the thread. I was indeed confused by your posts, but now I see that your and Rand differ somewhat. However, after reading the link, I still don't see any arguments for Rand's postion, just her baseless assertions. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste what you think is the argument for her morality in that link?
"Socrates, using your example, if EVERY man has the right to make his life as best as possible, then wouldn't it be a contradiction for any one man to inhibit this right in others?"
No. That's simply false reasoning.
"If the principle is universal that "every man" has a right to make his life as best as possible, , then wouldn't it would imply the necessity of an absence of the enslaving, raping & killing of other men?"
See above.
To illustrate my point, please answer this question. In a game of soccer, every player has the right to score as many points as he can. Does that mean that a player doesn't have the right to steal the ball from other players?

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”